Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

G.R. No. 194445

Present:
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
BRION
PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.

- versus -

ROGER POSADA y URBANO and

EMILY POSADA y SARMIENTO,
Accused.

Promulgated:
March 12, 2012

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
REYES, J.:
As we decide this appeal involving a couple who allegedly
violated Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, we should bear in mind the
words emanating from the pen of former Justice Isagani A. Cruz:
We need only add that the active support of everyone is
needed to bolster the campaign of the government against the evil
of drug addiction. The merchants of all prohibited drugs, from the
rich and powerful syndicates to the individual street "pushers,"
must be hounded relentlessly and punished to the full extent of the
law, subject only to the inhibitions of the Bill of Rights.[1]

The Case

Accused-appellants Roger Posada (Roger) and Emily Posada (Emily) were

convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes, in
Criminal Case No. 3490 for selling twelve (12) pieces of transparent sealed plastic
sachet, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight
of 0.4578 grams, in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.[2]
Roger was also convicted by the same RTC in Criminal Case No. 3489 for
possession of one piece of torn plastic sachet, containing residue of a crystalline
substance (allegedly shabu), a piece of small aluminum foil, a pair of small
scissors, and fifteen (15) pieces of used lighter all of which are intended to be
used for smoking or introducing dangerous drugs into the body of a person, in
violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.[3]
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, the accused-appellants filed an appeal
before the Court of Appeals (CA) which, via a Decision[4] dated June 17, 2010,
affirmed the RTC Decision as to the accused-appellants' conviction in Criminal
Case No. 3490 but acquitted Roger in Criminal Case No. 3489 on the ground of
reasonable doubt.
Now, the accused-appellants ask this Court for a complete exoneration from
the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 3490 on the ground that the prosecution
failed to establish the chain of custody and integrity of the seized illegal items and
to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Antecedent Facts
According to the evidence of the prosecution, P/CI Gil Francis Tria (P/CI
Tria), the Chief of Police of Virac Municipal Police Station and representative of
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), ordered surveillance on the
activities of the accused-appellants and a certain Johnjohn Urbano (Urbano).[5] As a
result of the said surveillance, PO1 Roldan Area (PO1 Area) was able to buy one
sachet of shabu from Emily for P250.00 on August 2, 2005.[6]
Consequently, after the August 2, 2005 test-buy yielded positive result, P/CI
Tria applied for a search warrant, which the Honorable Jaime E. Contreras granted.
[7]
Thus, at noontime of August 3, 2005, P/CI Tria and his team proceeded
to BarangayConcepcion
and
coordinated
with Punong
Barangay Antonio Asuncion, Jr. (Asuncion) in the operation against the accusedappellants.[8]
When the team of P/CI Tria reached the place of operation, they found Emily
standing in front of her house. PO1 Area, who was the poseur-buyer, called her and
when she came near him, he told her that he would buy shabu. PO1 Area then
handed to EmilyP250.00, consisting of two pieces of P100.00 bill and one piece

of P50.00 bill. After receiving the money from PO1 Area, Emily immediately went
to her house and got a coin purse. When she returned at the scene of the operation,
Emily gave PO1 Area one sachet of shabu, which she got from the coin purse.
Subsequently, Roger appeared and handed to Emily 12 plastic sachets
of shabu which Emily placed inside the coin purse. At this point, PO1 Area
identified himself as a police officer while giving the signal to his team that the
buy-bust turned positive. He arrested Emily while Roger ran away and went inside
their house. PO1 Area informed Emily of her constitutional rights, but the latter
failed to utter any word.[9]
While PO1 Area was holding the arm of Emily, who still had in her hands the
coin purse where she got the sachet of shabu and the buy-bust money, P/CI Tria
took pictures of the incident using his cellphone while the official photographer
was also taking pictures. After the search, a coin purse containing sachets
of shabu and a bundle of money was found in Emily's possession. [10] PO1 Area
then prepared a Receipt for Property Seized (RPS).[11] Asuncion, Kagawad Eva
Sarmiento (Sarmiento) and a certain Robert Vargas (Vargas) witnessed the
preparation of the said receipt.[12]
Meanwhile, when Roger left Emily at the scene of the buy-bust operation, he
went inside his house and closed the door. Armed with the search warrant, SPO1
Salvador Aldave, Jr. (SPO1 Aldave) forced the door open. SPO1 Aldave was the
first person to enter the house, followed by the barangay officials and his fellow
officers, SPO1 Roger Masagca (SPO1 Masagca) and PO1 Ronnie Valeza (PO1
Valeza). The search warrant was shown to Roger. In his presence and in the
presence of Kagawad Jena Arcilla (Arcilla), the raiding team recovered one piece
of aluminum foil, one plastic sachet containing residue of white crystalline
substance, and one small pair of green scissors beside the bed inside a room, and
15 pieces of used lighters from an improvised altar on top of a wooden table. A
search of Roger's pocket yielded two pieces of P50.00 bill and one piece
of P100.00 bill. SPO1 Aldave as the seizing officer prepared and signed an
RPS. Asuncion, Arcilla and Barangay Tanod Juan Gonzales (Gonzales) witnessed
the preparation and signing of the said RPS. Roger, however, refused to sign the
same. The couple was then brought to the police station.[13]

At the Virac Police Station, a body search on Emily resulted in the seizure of
bills of different denominations, totalingP2,720.00. Some of these bills were
identified as those bills photocopied and submitted to the Provincial Prosecution
Office.[14]
On August 4, 2005, immediately after the operation and the execution of the
search warrant, P/CI Tria requested for a laboratory examination of a piece of
small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing white crystalline

substance marked with initial R; 12 pieces of small size heat-sealed transparent

plastic sachets, containing white crystalline substance with sub-markings R-1 to
R-12; and one small size crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet.
The request of P/CI Tria for laboratory examination dated August 4, 2005 was
received by a certain PO2 Abanio [Abao] and Police Inspector Sta. Cruz, J.
(P/Insp. Sta. Cruz). The sachet with the initial R was the sachet of shabu sold to
PO1 Area during the buy bust operation while the sachets of shabu marked as R1 to R-12 were the sachets of shabu which Roger handed to Emily and which
were found in the possession of Emily after PO1 Area identified himself as a police
officer.[15]
Subsequently, witness Police Senior Inspector Josephine Macura Clemen
(PSI Clemen), the forensic expert, received personally from the receiving clerk
(PO2 Abanio) the above-mentioned marked pieces of evidence. She then
immediately conducted laboratory examination, yielding a result that the 12 pieces
of plastic sachets (with markings R-1 to R-12), the one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet with marking R, the one aluminum foil strip, and a small size
plastic sachet contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.[16]

The accused-appellants were subsequently charged in two separate

Informations,[17] both dated August 4, 2005, with violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which were respectively docketed as Criminal Case
No. 3490 and Criminal Case No. 3489. The Informations state as follows:
Criminal Case No. 3490
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor accuses Roger Posada y Urbano
and Emily Posada y Sarmiento of Violation of R.A. 9165 defined and penalized
under Section 5 of said Law, committed as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of August 2005 at noontime along Imelda
Blvd. in barangay Concepcion, municipality (sic) of Virac, [P]rovince of
Catanduanes, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above-named accused without the authority of law, conspiring, confederating
and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another 12 pieces of transparent
sealed plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride[,] locally
known as shabu[,] with a total weight of 0.9 gram [-] a prohibited drug[,] and
several marked money bills.[18] [Emphasis supplied]
Criminal Case No. 3489
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor accuses Roger Posada y Urbano of
Violation of R.A. 9165 defined and penalized under Section 12 of said law,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of August 2005 in the afternoon in Barangay
Concepcion, municipality (sic) of Virac, province (sic) of Catanduanes,

Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused
without the authority of law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously possess and in control of one (1) piece of teared plastic sachet
containing residue of a crystalline substance[,] locally known as shabu, (1) piece
small aluminum foil, (1) piece small scissors (sic) and 15 pieces of used lighter[,]
which paraphernalia are (sic) fit or intended for smoking or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body of a person.[19]

However, the Information for Criminal Case No. 3490 was later amended,
to reflect a change in the weight of the seized drugs from 0.9 gram to 0.4578
gram.
[20]

Meanwhile, on the part of the accused-appellants, they simply denied the

accusations against them. Roger claimed that on April 3, 2005 (which was even a
misleading date since the event happened on August 3, 2005), at around 12 noon,
he was putting his three year-old child to sleep inside their house, while his wife
Emily was washing their clothes at his parents' house. He then peeped through the
window jalousies when he heard his wife calling out his name. He saw a
policeman, later identified as PO1 Area, pulling Emily towards the road. Roger
claimed that PO1 Valeza later poked a gun at him, preventing him to move from
the window. Thereafter, the door of Roger's house was forced open, allowing SPO1
Aldave, SPO1 Masagca, PO1 Valeza and Barangay Tanod Vic Vargas (Vargas) to
enter his house. Inside the house, PO1 Valeza allegedly took down the jackets
hanging on the wall and searched them; SPO1 Aldave took pictures while Vargas
and SPO1 Masagca went inside the room and searched the cabinets where toys
were kept. Roger further claims that nothing was found in his house. After the
search, Roger was brought to the patrol car where his wife Emily was taken.[21]
Meanwhile, Emily testified that on that fateful day of August 3, 2005, she
was washing clothes at her mother-in-law's house when a man, whom she could
not identify, approached her and asked her if she was Emily Posada. She alleged
that the man immediately held her hands, shouting Police! Police! after which
police officers Tria and Aldave arrived. Her picture was taken. Subsequently, she
was brought to the patrol car where her husband Roger later joined her. Both Roger
and Emily were then transported to the police station. Roger was placed behind
bars while Emily was placed at the detention cell of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP).[22]
The couple claimed that the police officers did not inform them why they
were brought to the police station and subsequently detained. Emily denied that a
buy-bust operation was conducted against her, but she was aware of the search
conducted in their house because her husband informed her at the police station.
Meanwhile, Roger also denied that the police officers presented to him a search
warrant. Likewise, both alleged that the money taken from Emily's wallet were the

proceeds of the sale of their chickens, which Roger gave to Emily. The said money
amounted to more or less P3,000.00.[23]
Issues
Considering that the accused-appellants did not file a supplemental brief and
that appellee People of the Philippines adopted its brief before the CA, we now
rule on the matter based on the issues [24] which the accused-appellants raised in
their brief before the CA, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
NOTWITHSTANDING
THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ALLEGED SEIZED
ILLEGAL ITEMS.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELANTS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S
FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.[25]
Our Ruling
While we give due credence to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses absent any showing that the elements of the crime have been overlooked,
misapprehended, or misapplied, we will take pains in taking a second hard look on
the issues the accused-appellants raised, considering they are husband and wife
whose imprisonment will greatly affect the children they will leave behind once
they are declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, we are going to discuss the case following the issues the accusedappellants raised.
The prosecution has established the chain
of custody and integrity of the seized
illegal items.

The accused-appellants alleged that the prosecution failed to establish the

chain of custody and integrity of the seized illegal items because:

(1) The apprehending officers allegedly failed to submit the seized illegal
items to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for a qualitative and quantitative
examination within the mandatory 24-hour period from confiscation; and
(2) There is an alleged discrepancy as to the number of plastic sachets
recovered from the accused-appellants and those submitted to forensic
chemist PSI Clemen.
On the first factual issue, we find that the records of the case and the
testimonies of witnesses belie the accused-appellants' contention.
Based on the records, the buy-bust operation, the arrest of the accusedappellants and the confiscation of the illegal items happened at around 12 noon of
August 3, 2005.[26] PO1 Area received from Emily one sachet of shabu and after
PO1 Area introduced himself and arrested Emily, 12 more sachets of shabu were
found in the possession of Emily. The said 12 sachets ofshabu were inside a coin
purse, with a bundle of money.[27] PO1 Area prepared on the same day an RPS [28] in
the presence ofAsuncion, Kagawad Sarmiento and Vargas.[29] On August 4, 2005,
P/CI Tria requested for a laboratory examination of a piece of small size heatsealed transparent plastic sachet, containing white crystalline substance marked
with initial R; 12 pieces of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets,
containing white crystalline substance with sub-markings R-1 to R-12; and
one small size crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet. The request of
P/CI Tria for laboratory examination dated August 4, 2005 was received by PO2
Abanio and P/Insp. Sta. Cruz on the same date.[30]
The accused-appellants wanted us to believe that a day had lapsed before
P/CI Tria submitted the illegal drugs to PNP Crime Laboratory Service, contrary to
the mandate of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. They even cited the testimony of P/CI
Tria where the latter allegedly admitted submitting the subject seized items on
August 4, 2005. However, a close look at the testimony of P/CI Tria [31] will reveal
that nothing in it would show that he submitted the alleged illegal drugs beyond the
24-hour reglementary period. In fact, even the Laboratory Examination Request
dated August 4, 2005 does not indicate violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
[32]
Clearly, from the foregoing, the accused-appellants failed to adduce any
evidence to prove their contention. The age-old but familiar rule
that he who alleges must prove his allegation applies[33] in this case. The accusedappellants' failure to show evidence that the police officers did not comply with
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 gives us no other recourse but to respect the findings
of trial court and of the CA.

Furthermore, the CA is correct in giving credence to the testimonies of the

police officers as regards the timely submission of the subject illegal drugs since

they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, unless there is
evidence suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers. [34] In this case, the
accused-appellants failed to contradict the presumption. What goes against the
accused-appellants is the fact that they have not offered any evidence of ill-motive
against the police officers. Emily even admitted that she did not know PO1 Area,
the poseur-buyer.[35] Considering that there was no existing relationship between
the police officers and the accused-appellants, the former could not be accused of
improper motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellants. InPeople v.
Dumangay,[36] we upheld the findings of the lower court on the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties because there was no proof of illmotive. Therein, the accused-appellants self-serving and uncorroborated defenses
did not prevail over the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses. The
same may be said in the present case.
Finding the accused-appellants' arguments without a leg to stand on,
the apprehending police officers are presumed to have timely submitted the seized
illegal items to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for a qualitative and quantitative
examination within the mandatory 24-hour period from confiscation.
On the second factual issue, we find the accused-appellants' claim not
supported by evidence.
The accused-appellants alleged that the integrity of the seized illegal items
was compromised and their evidentiary value diminished because of the alleged
discrepancy between the number of plastic sachets recovered from the accusedappellants and those submitted to forensic chemist PSI Clemen. They insisted that
based on the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 3489 and 3490 and the
testimonies of witnesses Asuncion[37] and SPO1 Aldave,[38] only fourteen (14)
plastic sachets were recovered from the accused-appellants, while PSI Clemen
allegedly testified that a total of 15 sachets were submitted for examination.[39]
However, a review of the defense-quoted testimony of PSI Clemen would
show that she received one piece of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet with marking R,[40] 12 pieces small size heat-sealed marked as R-1 to
R-12[41] and one small size crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic
sachet[42] totaling to 15 items. PSI Clemen's testimony tallies with the Laboratory
Examination Request (Exhibit J) of P/CI Tria. We reproduce Exhibit J below,
to wit:
Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
Virac Municipal Police Station
Virac, Catanduanes

MEMORANDUM:
FOR

The Chief
PNP Crime Laboratory Service
Camp Gen Simeon A Ola
Legaspi City

SUBJECT
:
Laboratory Examination request for
DATE
:
04 August 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------1. Request conduct laboratory examination on the accompanying
specimen to determine whether the white crystalline granules
inside Thirteen (13) pcs small size transparent heat seald (sic)
plastic sachets are Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or SHABU
and also whether the one (1) pc small size crumpled aluminum foil
and small size transparent plastic sachet contains residue or
granules of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu.
EXHIBIT
QUANTITY/ DESCRIPTION
A One (1) pc small size heat sealed transparent
plastic sachet sachet (sic) containing white
crystalline substance with marking initial R
the initial of PO1 ROLDAN AREA who acted
as posuer (sic) buyer during the drug buy bust
operation.
B

Twelve (12) pcs small size heat sealed

transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance with markings R1-R12
found/confiscated from the suspect during drug
buy bust operation.

One (1) small size crumpled aluminum foil and

small size plastic sachet confiscated/found in
the possession of suspect during the execution
of search warrant number 37 issued by Hon[.]
Judge Jaime E[.] Contreras of RTC Branch 43.

SUSPECT/S

COMPLAINANT

Roger Posada y Urbano

Emily Posada y Sarmiento
John-John Bryan Urbano y Zafe
Officer-in-Charge
Virac MPS

FACTS OF THE CASE: Evidence submitted for laboratory

examination was bought and others were confiscated by the PNP
team of Virac during Buy Bust (sic) operation and the
effect/execution of search warrant number 37 on August 3, 2005 in
[B]arangay Concepcion Virac, Catanduanes.
2. Request acknowledge reciept (sic) and furnish this office
Laboratory examination result as soon as possible for subsequent
submission/filing same in court as supporting documents to this
case.

GIL FRANCIS G[.] TRIA

Pol Chief Inspector
Officer-in-Charge[43]

Based on the cited exhibit, we find that in Exhibit A we have the first item,
marked with R. Under Exhibit B, we have the next 12 items marked as R-1
to R-12. Under Exhibit C, we have the remaining two items submitted to the
crime laboratory, namely one small size crumpled aluminum foil and small size
plastic sachet confiscated and found in the possession of Roger. All these items
total to 15 items consistent with the testimony of PSI Clemen. Thus, evidence
shows no discrepancy as to the number of plastic sachets recovered from the
accused-appellants and those submitted to forensic chemist PSI Clemen.
Finally, we say that the prosecution has established the chain of custody and
integrity of the seized illegal items.
After PO1 Area arrested Emily and confiscated the 13 sachets of shabu (one
bought by PO1 Area from Emily and 12 found in Emily's coin purse after she
received the same from her husband Roger),[44] P/CI Tria took pictures of the
incident using his cellphone while the official photographer was also taking
pictures.[45] Then PO1 Area prepared an RPS,[46] which Asuncion, Sarmiento and
Vargas witnessed.[47] Meanwhile, SPO1 Aldave, seizing officer went inside the
house of the accused-appellants, prepared and signed an RPS after the raiding team
found a piece of aluminum foil, one plastic sachet containing residue of white
crystalline substance, one small pair of green scissors beside the bed inside a room,
15 pieces of used lighters, and two pieces ofP50.00 bill and one piece of P100.00
bill. Asuncion, Arcilla and Gonzales witnessed the preparation and signing of the
said RPS.[48]Thereafter, on August 4, 2005, P/CI Tria requested for a laboratory
examination of a piece of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet,
containing white crystalline substance marked with initial R; 12 pieces of small
size heat sealed transparent plastic sachets, containing white crystalline substance
with sub-markings R-1 to R-12; and one small size crumpled aluminum foil
and small size plastic sachet. The request of P/CI Tria for laboratory examination
dated August 4, 2005 was received by a certain PO2 Abanio and P/Insp. Sta. Cruz.
[49]
Subsequently, witness PSI Clemen, the forensic expert, received personally
from PO2 Abanio the above-mentioned marked pieces of evidence. She then
immediately conducted a laboratory examination, yielding a result that the 12
pieces of plastic sachets (with markings R-1 to R-12), the one heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet with marking R and the one aluminum foil strip
contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.[50] In open court, the above-mentioned
pieces of evidence were identified and marked.[51]
From the foregoing, the prosecution, without an iota of doubt, has established
the chain of custody and integrity of the seized illegal items. The Supreme Court

in People v. Sanchez,[52] clearly discussed how chain of custody should be proven,

to wit:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.[53]

In the instant case, the prosecution was able to present, not only the corpus
delicti, but the testimonies of the people involved in each link in the chain of
custody.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accusedappellants sold 12 sachets of shabu, but it
has proven the accused-appellants' guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of possession of
the same number of shabu in violation of
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Before we proceed in discussing the guilt of the couple, we must first take
into account a discrepancy in the Information for Criminal Case No. 3490. In the
said information, the accused-appellants were charged for selling 12 pieces of
transparent sealed plastic sachet of shabu. However, based on the evidence which
the prosecution adduced, Emily sold to PO1 Area one sachet ofshabu, which was
worth P250.00. Then, after she handed the one sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer,
Emily received additional 12 sachets of shabu from her husband Roger and when
PO1 Area informed the couple of the buy-bust, Emily had in her possession the 12
sachets of shabu.[54] Subsequently, the confiscated sachets of shabu were marked.
The one sold to PO1 Area was marked with R, while the 12 sachets
of shabu Roger handed to Emily before their arrest were marked as R-1 to R12.[55]
The unfortunate fact of this case is that rather than separately charging Emily
for the sale of the one sachet of shabu and charging both Emily and Roger for
possession of the 12 sachets of shabu, the public prosecutor lumped the charges
together to sale of 12 sachets of shabu. This is wrong. The Information is defective
for charging the accused-appellants of selling 12 sachets of shabuwhen, in

fact, they should have been charged of selling one sachet of shabu and possessing
12 sachets of shabu. From the evidence adduced, Emily and Roger never sold the
12 sachets of shabu. They possessed them. Thus, they should have not been
convicted for selling the 12 sachets of shabu. However, this was exactly what was
done both by the trial court and the CA. Without basis in fact, they convicted the
couple for selling the 12 sachets of shabu.
Indeed, it must be pointed out that the prosecution filed a
defective Information. An Information is fatally defective when it is clear that it
does not really charge an offense[56] or when an essential element of the crime has
not been sufficiently alleged.[57] In the instant case, while the prosecution was able
to allege the identity of the buyer and the seller, it failed to particularly allege or
identify in the Information the subject matter of the sale or the corpus delicti. We
must remember that one of the essential elements to convict a person of sale of
prohibited drugs is to identify with certainty the corpus delicti. Here, the
prosecution took the liberty to lump together two sets of corpora
delicti when it should have separated the two in two different informations. To
allow the prosecution to do this is to deprive the accused-appellants of their right to
be informed, not only of the nature of the offense being charged, but of the
essential element of the offense charged; and in this case, the very corpus delicti of
the crime.
Furthermore, when ambiguity exists in the complaint or information, the
court has no other recourse but to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the accused.
[58]
Here, since there exists ambiguity as to the identity of corpus delicti, an
essential element of the offense charged, it follows that such ambiguity must be
resolved in favor of the accused-appellants. Thus, from the foregoing discussion,
we have no other choice but to acquit the accused-appellants of sale of 12 sachets
of shabu.
Truly, both the trial court and the CA were wrong in convicting the couple for
selling 12 sachets of shabu because the prosecution failed to show that the husband
and wife had indeed sold the 12 sachets of shabu. Section 5, Article II of R.A.
9165 provides:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos ([P]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
([P]10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and
all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
act as a broker in any of such transactions.

More, jurisprudence holds that the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs can only be successful when the following elements are established, namely:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the
sale; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore..[59]
To our minds, while there was indeed a transaction between Emily and PO1
Area, the prosecution failed to show that the subject matter of the sale to PO1 Area
was the 12 sachets of shabu. Based on the testimony of PO1 Area, the 12 sachets
of shabu were the sachets of shabu which Roger handed to his wife Emily and
were not sold, but which PO1 Area found in her possession after the latter
identified himself as a police officer.
In People v. Paloma,[60] we acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure
to prove the crime of illegal sale of drugs, and we have set the standard in proving
the same, to wit:
Under the "objective" test set by the Court in People v. Doria,
the prosecution must clearly and adequately show the details of the purportedsale,
namely, the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, and, finally, the accused's
delivery of the illegal drug to the buyer, whether the latter be the informant alone
or the police officer. This proof is essential to ensure that law-abiding citizens are
not unlawfully induced to commit the offense.[61]

In the instant case, PO1 Area's testimony showed no evidence that the
transaction as to the sale of the 12 sachets of shabu ever happened. Rather, PO1
Area adequately testified on the fact that accused-appellant Roger handed the 12
sachets of shabu to Emily who kept them in a coin purse. And after PO1 Area
identified himself as a police operative, he found the 12 sachets of shabu in Emily's
possession.[62] From the foregoing, while the prosecution was able to prove the sale
of one sachet of shabu, it is patently clear that it never established with moral
certainty all the elements of illegal sale of the 12 sachets of shabu. And failure to
show that indeed there was sale means failure to prove the guilt of the accused for
illegal sale of drugs, because what matters in the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is to show proof that the sale actually happened, coupled with the
presentation in court of corpus delicti.[63] Here, the prosecution failed to prove the
existence of the sale of the 12 sachets of shabu and also to prove that the 12
sachets of shabu presented in court were truly the subject matter of the sale
between the accused-appellants and PO1 Area.

Notwithstanding the above-discussion, we convict both Roger and Emily of

illegal possession of prohibited drugs despite the fact that they were charged for
the sale of illegal drugs, because possession is necessarily included in sale of
illegal drugs.
Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof.
When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or
necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged
which is included in the offense proved.

Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same,

the accused-appellants should be convicted of possession. We have consistently
ruled that possession of prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale
thereof.[64] Then Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban logically and clearly
explained the rationale behind this ruling, to wit:
The prevailing doctrine is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the
sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of
another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and
which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.
Possession is a necessary element in a prosecution for illegal sale of
prohibited drugs. It is indispensable that the prohibited drug subject of the sale be
identified and presented in court. That the corpus delicti of illegal sale could not
be established without a showing that the accused possessed, sold and delivered a
prohibited drug clearly indicates that possession is an element of the former. The
same rule is applicable in cases of delivery of prohibited drugs and giving them
away to another.[65] (Citations omitted)

For prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the

following essential elements must be proven, namely: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possess the said drug.[66]
All these elements are obtaining and duly established in this case and we will
discuss them thoroughly below, since we are not ready to altogether exonerate the
couple.
On Emily's Liability

To our minds, the testimony of PO1 Area is sufficient to establish

concurrence of all the elements necessary to convict Emily of violating Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. PO1 Area vividly narrated the details of the buy-bust
operation. He recounted how on August 3, 2005 at around 12 noon, he acted as the
poseur-buyer of shabu. He approached Emily, who was then standing in front of
their house, and told her that he would like to buy shabu, and then gave her
the P250.00. Emily then returned to her house and got a coin purse. Upon
returning, Emily handed to PO1 Area a piece of sachet containing shabu. After
receiving the sachet of shabu, PO1 Area saw Roger hand the 12 sachets of shabu to
Emily who kept them in a coin purse. After paying for and receiving the sachet
ofshabu from Emily, PO1 Area arrested the latter and found in her possession the
12 sachets of shabu.[67] From the foregoing, it is patently clear that the prosecution
established with moral certainty all the elements of illegal possession of shabu, that
is: PO1 Area found in Emily's physical and actual possession the 12 sachets
of shabu; such possession of the 12 sachets of shabu was not authorized; and since
Emily put the 12 sachets of shabu in the purse after receiving them from her
husband, she possessed the same freely and consciously.
Furthermore, PO1 Area's testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of
the following: (a) Barangay Kagawad Sarmiento who witnessed how PO1 Area
caught Emily doing the illegal act; (b) Barangay Captain Asuncion, Jr. who
testified that he was with the raiding team when the latter conducted the buy-bust
operation and that he witnessed how money changed hands; (c) P/CI Tria who
witnessed the buy-bust operation and was one of the arresting officers; (d) SPO1
Aldave who executed the search warrant; and (e)Barangay Kagawad Arcilla who
also accompanied the raiding team in the search of the accused-appellants' house.
All these witnesses completed all the angles of the buy-bust operation and the
search on Emily's person up to the finding that she possessed the 12 sachets
of shabu. Indeed, considering all of the above-findings of facts, we cannot have
other conclusion but to find Emily guilty beyond reasonable doubt for possession
of prohibited drugs.
Indeed, every accused deserves a second look before conviction. This is the
essence of the constitutional presumption of innocence. In the present case, we did
not only take a second look at the facts and laws of this case because the accusedappellants are both parents. We take a third, a fourth up to a seventh look to ensure
that no child will be left unattended because his parents were imprisoned based on
false accusations. Thus, after reviewing this case, the bare truth is Emily was found
in possession of 12 sachets of shabu on August 3, 2005.
On Roger's Liability

As to Roger, can we also convict him of possession of the same 12 sachets

of shabu considering that same had been found in the possession of his wife
Emily?
We resolve in the affirmative.
In United States v. Juan,[68] we have clarified the meaning of the words
having possession of. We said that the said phrase included constructive
possession, that is, the relation between the owner of the drug and the drug itself
when the owner is not in actual physical possession, but when it is still under his
control and management and subject to his disposition.[69] In other words, in that
case, we recognized the fact that a person remains to be in possession of the
prohibited drugs although he may not have or may have lost physical possession of
the same.
To elucidate, we must go back to the circumstances surrounding
the Juan case.
A
Chinaman
named
Lee
See
arrived
at
the Bayof Calbayog, Samar through the steamer Ton-Yek. Upon disembarking, he
went to the house of therein appellant Chan Guy Juan, who was living in the town
of Calbayog. Lee See and Chan Guy Juan had a lengthy conversation. Chan Guy
Juan then hired a certain Isidro Cabinico (Cabinico) to go alongside of the steamer
with his baroto, to carry and deliver to him a sack which appellant Chan Guy Juan
alleged was sugar. Cabinico went to Lee See to get the said sack. However, on his
way to the house of Chan Guy Juan, Cabinico was arrested by the local authorities.
Found in his possessions were a small amount of sugar and 28 cans of opium. The
opium was confiscated and separate criminal charges were instituted against the
two Chinamen and Cabinico. After a thorough investigation, the provincial fiscal
dismissed the case against Cabinico because he had no knowledge of the content of
the sack, while the two Chinamen were eventually convicted. Chan Guy Juan
appealed his conviction arguing that he did not have actual physical possession or
control of the 28 cans of opium. But we held that both Chinese had constructive
possession of the opium and that they were both guilty as principals.[70]
Our ruling in Juan applies to the present case. Admittedly, the 12 sachets
of shabu were found in the possession of Emily. But PO1 Area saw Roger hand the
same 12 sachets of shabu to Emily. While Roger had lost physical possession of
the said 12 sachets of shabu, he had constructive possession of the same because
they remain to be under his control and management. In the Juan case, Lee See
gave the physical possession of the opium to Cabinico while Chan Guy Juan had
not yet received the same opium from Lee See, but both were held guilty of illegal
possession of opium. Thus, we can liken the instant case to that of Juan because
while Roger had lost physical possession of the 12 sachets of shabu to Emily, he
maintained constructive possession of the same.

Convicting both Emily and Roger of possession of illegal drugs deprives

their children of parents. But if we have to take care of our children and the family
where each of us belongs, we are obligated to put in jail all those, including fathers
and mothers, who peddle illegal drugs.
Finally, we cannot let this case pass us by without emphasizing the need for
the public prosecutor to properly evaluate all the pieces of evidence and file the
proper information to serve the ends of justice. The public prosecutor must exert all
efforts so as not to deny the People a remedy against those who sell prohibited
drugs to the detriment of the community and its children. Many drug cases are
dismissed because of the prosecutor's sloppy work and failure to file airtight cases.
If only the prosecution properly files theInformation and prosecutes the same with
precision, guilty drug pushers would be punished to the extent allowed under the
law, as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 17, 2010
is MODIFIED.
Accused-appellants ROGER
POSADA
and
EMILY
POSADA ARE FOUND GUILTY OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF TWELVE
(12) SACHETS OF METHAMPETAMINE HYDROCHOLORIDE
OR SHABU, WITH A NET WEIGHT OF 0.4578 GRAMS AND ARE
HEREBY SENTENCED TO THE INDETERMINATE PENALTY OF
TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY, AS MINIMUM, TO FOURTEEN
(14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS, AS MAXIMUM AND A FINE
OF P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

AT T E S TAT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

[1]

People v. Manalansan, G.R. Nos. 76369-70, September 14, 1990, 189 SCRA 619, 624.
CA rollo, pp. 45 and 51.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Elihu A.
Ybaez, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-20.
[5]
CA rollo, p. 47.
[2]

[6]

Id.
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id. at 47-48.
[10]
TSN, October 31, 2006, pp. 13-14.
[11]
RTC records, Criminal Case No. 3490, p. 87.
[12]
TSN, October 31, 2006, pp. 9-10; TSN, May 10, 2006, pp. 12-17.
[13]
RTC records, Criminal Case No. 3490, p. 110.
[14]
CA rollo, pp. 48 and 160.
[15]
RTC records, Criminal Case No. 3490, p. 89.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Id.
[18]
RTC records, Criminal Case No. 3490, pp. 1-2.
[19]
RTC records, Criminal Case No. 3489, pp. 5-6.
[20]
RTC records, Criminal Case No. 3490, pp. 20-21.
[21]
TSN, August 28, 2007, pp. 3-6, 10, 12-18.
[22]
TSN, August 31, 2007, pp. 3-6.
[23]
Id.
[24]
CA rollo, p. 83.
[25]
Id.
[26]
RTC records, Criminal Case No. 3490, p.3; TSN, August 31, 2007, p. 3, Criminal Case No. 3489.
[27]
RTC records, Criminal Case No. 3490, p. 6
[28]
Supra note 11.
[29]
TSN, October 31, 2006, pp. 9-10.
[30]
TSN, October 31, 2006, pp. 8-9.
[31]
Accused-appellants cited TSN, October 31, 2006, p. 8.
[32]
Supra note 15.
[33]
Evangelista v. People, G.R. No.163267, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 134, 148, citing Samson v. Daway, 478
Phil. 784, 795 (2004).
[34]
People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011.
[35]
TSN, August 31, 2007, pp. 8-10.
[36]
G.R. No. 173483, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 290.
[37]
TSN, May 10, 2006, p. 13-14.
[38]
TSN, May 8, 2006, p. 7.
[39]
TSN, May 19, 2006, pp. 7-8 for Criminal Case No. 3490.
[40]
Id. at p. 8.
[41]
TSN, May 19, 2006, pp. 3 and 5-6 for Criminal Case No. 3490.
[42]
Supra note 40.
[43]
Supra note 15.
[44]
Duplicate TSN, July 19, 2006, pp. 10-13, 22-24.
[45]
TSN, October 31, 2006, pp. 13-14.
[46]
Supra note 11.
[47]
TSN, October 31, 2006, pp. 9-10; TSN, May 10, 2006, pp. 12-17.
[48]
Supra note 13.
[49]
Supra note 15.
[50]
Id.
[51]
Duplicate TSN, July 19, 2006, pp. 11-12, 15, 17; TSN, May 19, 2006, pp. 3-9.
[52]
G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 216.
[53]
Id. at 216, citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.
[7]

[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]

Supra note 44.

Supra note 15.
Dela Chica v. Sandiganbayan, 462 Phil. 712, 723 (2003).
People v. Galido, G.R. Nos. 148689-92, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 502.
People v. Ng Pek, 81 Phil. 562, 565 (1948).

[59]

Supra note 34; People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 354, 361-362.
G.R. No. 178544, February 23, 2011.
[61]
Id.
[62]
Duplicate TSN, July 19, 2006, pp. 7-12.
[63]
Please see People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 354, 362; People v.
Dumangay, G.R. No. 173483, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 290, 298.
[60]

[64]

People v. Lacerna, 344 Phil. 100, 121 (1997); People v. Tabar, G.R. No. 101124, May 17, 1993, 222
SCRA 144, 152.
[65]
Id. at 120.
[66]
People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008, 571 SCRA 469, 474-475.
[67]
Supra note 9.

[68]
[69]
[70]

23 Phil. 105 (1912).

Id. at p. 107.
Id. at pp. 106-107.